While the law may not have specifically targeted LGBT peoples, it was clearly intended to provide protection for businesses and individuals attempting to force their religion on and to discriminate against other people. This is unacceptable. If your church doesn't want to let two men get married that's fine but as soon as you start running a business you have to abide by the rules of secular society.

Voiceofreason01:While the law may not have specifically targeted LGBT peoples, it was clearly intended to provide protection for businesses and individuals attempting to force their religion on and to discriminate against other people. This is unacceptable. If your church doesn't want to let two men get married that's fine but as soon as you start running a business you have to abide by the rules of secular society.

The bills sponsors openly stated that a case involving a same-sex couple was the inspiration for it.But yeah...the liberal media totally misrepresented it because wargarble.

kid_icarus:Voiceofreason01: While the law may not have specifically targeted LGBT peoples, it was clearly intended to provide protection for businesses and individuals attempting to force their religion on and to discriminate against other people. This is unacceptable. If your church doesn't want to let two men get married that's fine but as soon as you start running a business you have to abide by the rules of secular society.

The bills sponsors openly stated that a case involving a same-sex couple was the inspiration for it.But yeah...the liberal media totally misrepresented it because wargarble.

uh...right. The bill didn't specifically mentionLGBT peoples but it was clearly intended to discriminate against them. I guess the point I was trying to make is that even if you accept the interpretation being argued in the article it's still a terrible law that should never have made it as far as it did and deserved to be slapped down hard.

I had a student (who has advanced some really awful ideas in the past) say yesterday upon hearing about the Voting Rights Act, "What? We're not allowed to have literacy tests anymore? So any idiot is allowed to vote? There should be a minimum IQ." and I basically told him to shut the hell up.

I had a student (who has advanced some really awful ideas in the past) say yesterday upon hearing about the Voting Rights Act, "What? We're not allowed to have literacy tests anymore? So any idiot is allowed to vote? There should be a minimum IQ." and I basically told him to shut the hell up.

I had a student (who has advanced some really awful ideas in the past) say yesterday upon hearing about the Voting Rights Act, "What? We're not allowed to have literacy tests anymore? So any idiot is allowed to vote? There should be a minimum IQ." and I basically told him to shut the hell up.

You should've told him he'd fail any such test.

nah, setup a "reverse racism" poll test with questions about Marcus Garvy and Soultrain, laugh when he fails and tell him he can't vote

My religion requires me to operate a business in a discriminatory way, for did not Matthew say, "It is easier for a rich person to enter the Kingdom of God if they've looked someone in the eye and needled them"?

Voiceofreason01:kid_icarus: Voiceofreason01: While the law may not have specifically targeted LGBT peoples, it was clearly intended to provide protection for businesses and individuals attempting to force their religion on and to discriminate against other people. This is unacceptable. If your church doesn't want to let two men get married that's fine but as soon as you start running a business you have to abide by the rules of secular society.

The bills sponsors openly stated that a case involving a same-sex couple was the inspiration for it.But yeah...the liberal media totally misrepresented it because wargarble.

uh...right. The bill didn't specifically mentionLGBT peoples but it was clearly intended to discriminate against them. I guess the point I was trying to make is that even if you accept the interpretation being argued in the article it's still a terrible law that should never have made it as far as it did and deserved to be slapped down hard.

Exhibit A that this would have happened: DOMA didn't specifically mention LGBT people either.

I'm going to go with Jan Brewer on this one: this bill addressed an issue that to her knowledge does not exist in her state. No such situation where religious folks were required to abandon their "sincerely held" beliefs was brought to her attention, and so it was an ambulance call over the possibility of a bad fall.

And let's also give the President some kudos for keeping his big mouth shut on the issue, at least to the point where he didn't poison the waters publicly for Gov. Brewer and the visible hand of the market to take care of it.

Interesting take on it, and I suppose from a constitutional standpoint and with regards to the current Federal law their argument purely on the content of the law makes sense- but on the other, it was clearly intended to allow people to discriminate.

Honestly, I have a definite issue with the base Federal law as well, as evidenced by the Supreme Court cases mentioned involving providing contraception. It shouldn't be whether the government is burdening YOUR religious beliefs but whether your religious beliefs and how you choose to abide by them burdens OTHER PEOPLE. Your religion says birth control is a sin? DON'T FARKING USE IT. But you DON'T get to dictate whether other people do or not, including if they want it as part of their health coverage. And frankly, I think that should even pass the 'compelling reason' test for the government as well- the burden on the State for a child its parents can't afford on their own is substantial.

Tried to RTFA, but what awful shiat. They seem to be saying that a law is needed to protect people who violate other laws because of sincerely held beliefs. WTF? If these clowns really are constitutional scholars, I weep for your future.

Of course, they don't have many other options available. The more normal route, recourse through the courts if following a law violates your freedom of religion, isn't likely to be a winner for them. That, and the understanding that you can expect the law to be enforced until a court says otherwise; that's kind of required to end up in a court in the first place.

I had a student (who has advanced some really awful ideas in the past) say yesterday upon hearing about the Voting Rights Act, "What? We're not allowed to have literacy tests anymore? So any idiot is allowed to vote? There should be a minimum IQ." and I basically told him to shut the hell up.

You should've told him he'd fail any such test.

nah, setup a "reverse racism" poll test with questions about Marcus Garvy and Soultrain, laugh when he fails and tell him he can't vote

Ooh that's a good one. He's smart but dreadfully devoid of tact/social skills/empathy. His greatest hit is probably still when he told a black girl and a bisexual Jewish boy, "There's no more discrimination in the world."